euchrejack
Full Member
Don't feed the Trolls. They just get bigger and more numerous.
Posts: 139
|
Post by euchrejack on Dec 2, 2021 15:06:26 GMT -6
With the battle generator, I find it vital to make sure my light cruisers are doing something other than Active Fleet when war is declared. Raiding or convoy escorts mainly. What I love about destroyers is that they can "Get Lucky" and kill something a lot bigger, like a Battleship. Light cruisers are actually WORSE at using torpedoes.
In my limited experience with Great Britain 1900 AI Legacy Fleet, I've been forced to rely upon the Light Cruisers for foreign ports and sea zone coverage. Sometimes, you just need SOMETHING in an area or sea zone, and destroyers just don't work for the job pre-1930.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 2, 2021 15:30:48 GMT -6
My experience is opposite and light cruisers are most what can be told about jack of all traders.
They are powerful enough to sunk destroyers, there are powerful enough to work in numbers and sunk heavy cruiser, there are fast enough to get out sight of capital ship but they are still powerful enough to make enemy capital ship pay if ignored.
And there are cheap enough to be dispensable.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 3, 2021 15:36:53 GMT -6
I've been researching more information and refreshing my knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack and I came across some information about the condition of the battleships in the harbor.
Since it was peacetime, combat considerations did not take precedence. There were inches of flammable oil-based paint on their bulkheads, almost one inch thick. linoleum on their floors, pain, oils and fuel everywhere in the ship. Living spaces had wooden furniture and pianos. Tubes for wire and pumps had their sealant material dried and cracked so the boundaries were not watertight. Gaskets leaked and these contributed to problems with progressive flooding.
The ships had not recovered from ten years of depression-era underfunding of maintenance and repair. As you know ships that sail in the open seas, will hog and sag which causes stress. This stress causes metal embrittlement, loose rivets, watertight doors with dried and cracked gaskets which will actually not seal were sometimes warped and the doors would not fit closely. Decks that leaked, and machinery foundations were brittle and vulnerable to shock damage.
Due to the Washington Naval Treaty very little money were allocated to maintain the older battleship because they were going to be retired and new ships built. Many of the ships had seriously deteriorated. After the attack, damage control took precedence over habitability, comfort or convenience. The abililty of ships to resist torpedoes and bombs was greatly increased as the war progressed, by repairing and ensuring that these problems were not going to contribute to the loss of the ship.
I wonder if something along these lines, meaning as a ship gets older and economics are not good, possibly this should be included in the game.
Source: The attack on Pearl Harbor, Strategy, combat myths, deceptions by Alan Zimm
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 3, 2021 15:37:25 GMT -6
My experience is opposite and light cruisers are most what can be told about jack of all traders. They are powerful enough to sunk destroyers, there are powerful enough to work in numbers and sunk heavy cruiser, there are fast enough to get out sight of capital ship but they are still powerful enough to make enemy capital ship pay if ignored. And there are cheap enough to be dispensable. I concur with your conclusions. I still build them.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 6, 2021 8:33:51 GMT -6
Here is design for my current Japanese game. It is based on the principle that your armor belt should protect you against the penetration of your own guns. I have also adopted the US concept of sacrificing speed for guns and armor. These are the best guns I have at this time. I have included the armor penetration table for my guns to ensure I have interpreted the table correctly. Later designs will hopefully give me larger guns, better fire control and better speed.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Dec 6, 2021 11:07:50 GMT -6
Decent 12" guns in 1907 are perfectly viable, IMO and the secondary battery is fine as well. Personally, I'd want some 4" tertiary guns (sufficient to scare off early DDs and the higher rate of fire is much appreciated) Belt armor is very good (my personal rule of thumb is (Main Gun Caliber) = (Belt Armor), but this thicker armor might prolong the ships usefulness and save it, when it faces enemy BBs or BCs with 13 or 14" guns.
Deck armor is - holy moly - 5 inches! That deck armor weighs as much as the main belt!
That's complete overkill for the time. 2.5 or maybe 3 inches is absolutely sufficient.
Reducing the deck armor to 2.5 inches would give you some 2000 tons to play with, which could be used to up the speed to the (IMO) standard 21 knots for first gen BB (going for 21 knots shouldn't take a whole lot of tonnage anyway), increasing the secondary/tertiary battery or even add a 4th turret. If you need a few tons more, shave off two inches or so from the turret top armor.
I mean, sure, dive bombers will pen a 2.5 or 3 inch deck later on, but that's what - 15 or 20 years in the future? And by that time, you'd want to either scrap the thing anyway or want to convert it to a CVL - and you can't remove armor except for the turrets. So if you put all that weight into guns and the engine, you can later on remove that stuff and free up a ton of weight (pun intended) to get more planes in.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 6, 2021 12:50:04 GMT -6
Decent 12" guns in 1907 are perfectly viable, IMO and the secondary battery is fine as well. Personally, I'd want some 4" tertiary guns (sufficient to scare off early DDs and the higher rate of fire is much appreciated) Belt armor is very good (my personal rule of thumb is (Main Gun Caliber) = (Belt Armor), but this thicker armor might prolong the ships usefulness and save it, when it faces enemy BBs or BCs with 13 or 14" guns. Deck armor is - holy moly - 5 inches! That deck armor weighs as much as the main belt! That's complete overkill for the time. 2.5 or maybe 3 inches is absolutely sufficient. Reducing the deck armor to 2.5 inches would give you some 2000 tons to play with, which could be used to up the speed to the (IMO) standard 21 knots for first gen BB (going for 21 knots shouldn't take a whole lot of tonnage anyway), increasing the secondary/tertiary battery or even add a 4th turret. If you need a few tons more, shave off two inches or so from the turret top armor. I mean, sure, dive bombers will pen a 2.5 or 3 inch deck later on, but that's what - 15 or 20 years in the future? And by that time, you'd want to either scrap the thing anyway or want to convert it to a CVL - and you can't remove armor except for the turrets. So if you put all that weight into guns and the engine, you can later on remove that stuff and free up a ton of weight (pun intended) to get more planes in.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 6, 2021 12:52:10 GMT -6
Decent 12" guns in 1907 are perfectly viable, IMO and the secondary battery is fine as well. Personally, I'd want some 4" tertiary guns (sufficient to scare off early DDs and the higher rate of fire is much appreciated) Belt armor is very good (my personal rule of thumb is (Main Gun Caliber) = (Belt Armor), but this thicker armor might prolong the ships usefulness and save it, when it faces enemy BBs or BCs with 13 or 14" guns. Deck armor is - holy moly - 5 inches! That deck armor weighs as much as the main belt! That's complete overkill for the time. 2.5 or maybe 3 inches is absolutely sufficient. Reducing the deck armor to 2.5 inches would give you some 2000 tons to play with, which could be used to up the speed to the (IMO) standard 21 knots for first gen BB (going for 21 knots shouldn't take a whole lot of tonnage anyway), increasing the secondary/tertiary battery or even add a 4th turret. If you need a few tons more, shave off two inches or so from the turret top armor. I mean, sure, dive bombers will pen a 2.5 or 3 inch deck later on, but that's what - 15 or 20 years in the future? And by that time, you'd want to either scrap the thing anyway or want to convert it to a CVL - and you can't remove armor except for the turrets. So if you put all that weight into guns and the engine, you can later on remove that stuff and free up a ton of weight (pun intended) to get more planes in. I am going to leave the deck armor at 5 inches for the future. This is the IJN and they don't always have enough funding to build new ships so I try to stay ahead. The next progression of this design will use 14 inch guns, and Forward/Aft superposition guns. Hopefully I can add three knots to her speed. The belt is for the future also.
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Dec 6, 2021 12:59:27 GMT -6
By the time you need five inches of deck armor, that thing will be completely outmatched gun and speed wise.
While it is still relatively new, all that deck armor will be wasted, as nothing will come close to penning it.
The belt is fine, but I feel that 4in on the secondary's is too much. 2in would be better.
It would be a far better ship with less armor, more speed, and more rounds per gun.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 6, 2021 13:27:15 GMT -6
By the time you need five inches of deck armor, that thing will be completely outmatched gun and speed wise. While it is still relatively new, all that deck armor will be wasted, as nothing will come close to penning it. The belt is fine, but I feel that 4in on the secondary's is too much. 2in would be better. It would be a far better ship with less armor, more speed, and more rounds per gun. The issue is "who am I going to have to face". If it is the French or the British, they might have guns with ranges that can start hitting my ship from a range where it will hit the deck and the superstructure. I have to be concerned about that. As to the secondaries, I need to be able to engage the cruisers and destroyers effectively and not waste 12inch gun ammunition. This is my rationale.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Dec 6, 2021 14:09:22 GMT -6
I think there is a misunderstanding here. I'm pretty sure zederfflinger is talking about the secondary's armor, not the caliber of the secondaries - and I agree, I rarely go above 2" of armor on my secondaries. Edit: In my current Germany game, it's 1923 and my 14 inch, Q1 guns can't pen a 3 inch deck at a range of more than 20km, my 15", Q0 guns at 19km. So, fine, your ship could withstand the plunging fire from of those guns at, say, 25km 18km. Big deal. Those ships will just close in a little more and blow you out of the water at closer range Note: Those same 14 and 15 inch guns will pen your main belt at 14km. To pen even just 12 inches of armor, you'd have to close to 9km - good luck with that. Of course, this is all using my own, further advanced armor and AP tech, but Armor-tech is at level 10 and AP-tech at 9, so this might even each other out somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 6, 2021 14:20:11 GMT -6
I think there is a misunderstanding here. I'm pretty sure zederfflinger is talking about the secondary's armor, not the caliber of the secondaries - and I agree, I rarely go above 2" of armor on my secondaries. Ok, I missed that. I will mod the design. Update: I changed the design based on all suggestions, which I appreciate. I changed the secondaries to 1 inch, increased the torpedo defense to 1, gained one knot of speed and increased ammunition supply for the main guns to 120. Now how does it look?
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Dec 6, 2021 15:21:25 GMT -6
Sorry for not making myself clear. I will attempt to do better in the future.
I think the new design is a fair bit better. The extra knot of speed is nice, and more rounds per gun is always a good thing, especially in the early game and when you don't have many main battery guns.
Personally, I would decrease the deck and turret top armor to a more reasonable number, but Hawkeye has already gone over that.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 7, 2021 6:03:11 GMT -6
I do not completely understand which tasks should this ship accomplish.
Her armour layout is based on long range gunnery, thick deck and belt armour but not so for extended part of ships.
However she is slow so enemy ships will close distance and demolish her guns, extended part of ships as she will be sitting duck.
Another thing is that long range gunnery is terrible at this time.
If her deck armour is future proofing than she will be outclassed by enemy speed even more and her only 6 x 12" guns will face much more powerful opposition using her citadel armour only delay her demiss.
I would think about either making cheaper ship or transfer weight from deck armour to speed, extended part and turret face armour to make her overall more durable and difficult to slow down so even her lower max speed could be maintained after some beating.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 7, 2021 8:35:29 GMT -6
I do not completely understand which tasks should this ship accomplish. Her armour layout is based on long range gunnery, thick deck and belt armour but not so for extended part of ships. However she is slow so enemy ships will close distance and demolish her guns, extended part of ships as she will be sitting duck. Another thing is that long range gunnery is terrible at this time. If her deck armour is future proofing than she will be outclassed by enemy speed even more and her only 6 x 12" guns will face much more powerful opposition using her citadel armour only delay her demiss. I would think about either making cheaper ship or transfer weight from deck armour to speed, extended part and turret face armour to make her overall more durable and difficult to slow down so even her lower max speed could be maintained after some beating. Now I know how the Naval Construction Unit felt, no one likes their designs. Anyway, I am going to go with this but further designs will work towards more speed. I agree about turret face, it was the thickest on battleships. Update: I have redesigned my battleship, which is now classified as a battlecruiser. How is this and does it get where you think it should be. Opinion is good. Thanks
|
|